Social Security Changes

[henderson]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

I have yet to see any data that proves that people with physically demanding occupations have a substantially lower life expectancy. Those who have a small business and have 24/7/365 stress of trying to keep the wolves from the door have a whole lot of adverse medical problems. I looked for information on this with little success except for information put out by some unions which looked very suspect to me. We all have the option of changing occupations if we suspect the one we have is killing us.

This is my post #29

henderson
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 144


An excerpt from this article, not everyone can work to http://www.healthandphysicaleducatio...tancy-2.html70
Temperament and Habit: Temperament and habits are related to longevity. Easygoing persons outlive fast-paced, excitable, tense individuals. Manual labor before the age of 40 years does not appear to affect the length of life, but continued hard manual work after 40 years of age shortens life. Tension, overstrain, and overeating also shorten life. Excessive smoking reduces life expectation, but light smoking does not. Heavy alcohol-drinking shortens life, but moderate drinking has no demonstrated effect on longevity—provided the person continues to drink no more than moderately. Occupation: Occupation is of significance and of interest. Among males the greatest length of life is among members of the ministry. Other occupations follow in order: lawyers, engineers, teachers, doctors, farmers, business executives, white-collar workers, skilled tradesmen, and unskilled workers. Miners and quarrymen have the shortest expectancy, with granite workers at the bottom of the list.
Lindsay, I'm not saying small business folks don't work as hard as anyone out there, just that to believe folks that do hard physical labor their entire life will not make to 70

[FRR2EYW]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

This is totally untrue. We still import about 45% of our oil usage. We did drop below 50 % imports due to the recession. We did export gasoline last year which is a good and bad thing. The reason we exported it was that demand was down due to the recession. We had the capacity to import foreign oil and add value to it by refining it and exporting. This helps our balance of payments. Exports of oil products like plastics and fertilizer are also up. I think we have the ability to be totally domestic on oil at some time in the future due to the new technology of hydrolic fracking, but it wasn't 2011.

My information came from Bloomberg, see below.

U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949 - Bloomberg

And your source was?

[Lindsay Richards]

And your source was?

You stated OIL in your post. Your source says OIL PRODUCTS. Huge difference. I correctly stated in my post how we took imported oil and refined it into value added products for export. This is what we exported more of than we imported. This gave thousand of workers a job. Bloomberg and I agree perfectly. You should actually read your source. The fact remains that we imported about 45% of our oil last year. This cost us about $700,000 BILLION dollars. We have to release our God given natural resources. This alone would go a very long way to fixing our economy and solving our Social Security crisis.

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by alba07

The only thing obvious in this quote is that you have not worked in a physically demanding occupation. With all due respect, Taxman, raising the retirement age would be fine for someone like yourself who sits at a desk in an air conditioned/heated building, but completely unfair for most Americans. This is the problem, people who make decisions for us don't understand what it's like to be a working class American.

Alba, all due respect but I grew up in the feed, lumber, and coal business. What makes that all the more physically demanding is that I was highly allergic to the feed dust. It was a family business so you can guess what difference the allergies made....absolutely none. My family did all that hard work manually. We bagged the feed, loaded and unloaded lumber by hand, and shoveled coal. My dad lived to be 89 and was physically active until he was in his late 80's. My brother, who owns the business today will turn 70 shortly and he still looks like he's no more than mid 50's and most people still wouldn't want to tangle with him. So even someone who is in a physically demanding business can still be pretty darn active well into their later years. Most dairy farmers I know have lived very full, long, active lives and there are not a heck of a lot occupations more physically demanding than dairy farming.

All tax laws, including Social Security, are based on generalities. Not all who work manually will be physically shot by age 50. Most of those I know who have physically demanding jobs have their health damaged by their own choices of smoking and drinking and not necessarily the job itself.

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards

The fact remains that we imported about 45% of our oil last year. This cost us about $700,000 BILLION dollars.

Is that number really right? I read that as $700,000,000,000,000... or $700 trillion dollars.

Rick

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by FRR2EYW

2011 was the first year since 1949 that the US exported more oil than it imported. You say keep it at home and tax it. I fail to see how that would reduce prices. As I tried to explain earlier, it is a commodity. Price is based on supply, demand, and speculation about both. It is a world market so if we didn't sell ours, somebody else would stop selling to us and sell to another who would pay more.

Social Security is in desperate need of true reform. It will require sacrifice by everybody. It has been identified as being in trouble for the last 25 years. It should actually be eliminated. Let those young enough save for their own retirement. Fund the payments to those who are older out of tax revenue (we already do that). If you don't plan for and save for your own retirement, too bad. I personally do not believe the government has any business providing sustenance to people. Many people in this country feel they are entitled to way too much.

I didn't say keep it at home and tax it. I said tax the oil that leaves the country.

If I have to make a sacrifice, are you going to pay my bills?

[Lindsay Richards]

Nope, it is $700 BILLION. Our GDP is about $17 TRILLION. The imported oil is a huge portion of our imbalance of trade. Of course, it varies a lot on the price of oil. Oh, I see, I wrote it incorrectly. It is $700 BILLION. I was going to write it out with numbers, but switched to just write it out with letters. Sorry. When we sell gasoline overseas, it is a net positive for the US as it doesn't affect domestic gas prices and we get the jobs. It does not affect demand. It is just a manufacturing process. More foreign oil in; oil products shipped back overseas. Oil consumed in the world is unchanged, but we get a little help to our economy.

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

In an effort to save the System, would you be in favor of changes to Social Security, even if it reduced your benefits?

Hello, O.P.!

My read of the over 300 posts in this thread is that the response to your question is a resounding NO.

This group of Americans won't give up any portion of entitlements once conferred, no matter the cost to the Country or future generations.

Next question?

[wnytaxman]

Originally Posted by Francesca

Hello, O.P.!

My read of the over 300 posts in this thread is that the response to your question is a resounding NO.

This group of Americans won't give up any portion of entitlements once conferred, no matter the cost to the Country or future generations.

Next question?

Francesca, I think that many had the initial reaction of NO WAY JOSE, but then, have somewhat reconsidered and might make some minor concessions. But the general sentiment is the same one that seems to permeate all entitlements whether they are in the form of cash payments like SS or tax breaks like mortgage interest. That sentiment is to make the other guy pay.

I teach tax seminars to other CPA's and many times I'm asked the definition of "rich" that seems to be bandied about so often. My response is that the person who is rich is anyone who makes more than me. If I make 50k, and my neighbor makes 60k then my neighbor is rich. In other words tax the other guy.

I long for the leader who is willing to make the tough choices to save SS as well as other government institutions. The problem, as exemplified by this thread is that a leader like that probably doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of getting elected.

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

I long for the leader who is willing to make the tough choices to save SS as well as other government institutions. The problem, as exemplified by this thread is that a leader like that probably doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of getting elected.

It's true- the Entitlement Generation VOTES.

And now that we've reached the tipping point where more than 50% of Americans receive some kind of income from the Federal Government, I fear that nothing will change absent a reawakening of our sense of Civic Responsibility.

[wnytaxman]

I have one other way to reduce the entitlement generation, which does includes us. How about having anyone receiving any type of government payment being subject to drug testing. Test positive and you lose your check for that month and until you don't test positive. That change could reduce the entitlement crowd and help in the war against drugs. Of course the ACLU will have a field day with that one!

[RickO]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

I have one other way to reduce the entitlement generation, which does includes us. How about having anyone receiving any type of government payment being subject to drug testing. Test positive and you lose your check for that month and until you don't test positive. That change could reduce the entitlement crowd and help in the war against drugs. Of course the ACLU will have a field day with that one!

I'm with you on the drug testing but it would require the creation of a new government agency complete with a "Drug Testing Czar".

BTW, I would suggest one should loose benefits for a year instead of just a month. The people who processed their paperwork probably had to be drug tested and would loose their job forever if they got a positive result.

Rick

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by wnytaxman

I have one other way to reduce the entitlement generation, which does includes us. How about having anyone receiving any type of government payment being subject to drug testing. Test positive and you lose your check for that month and until you don't test positive. That change could reduce the entitlement crowd and help in the war against drugs. Of course the ACLU will have a field day with that one!

I can get on board with that, so long as the test includes those that detect traces of alcohol and marijuana, the two most popular recreational drugs of my generation!

[RickO]

Originally Posted by Francesca

I can get on board with that, so long as the test includes those that detect traces of alcohol and marijuana, the two most popular recreational drugs of my generation!

Ah... but one is legal everywhere and the other is legal in many places under certain circumstances so what action should a positive result bring about?

It's a weak argument to take the position that "if they can afford those 'recreational drugs' they don't need a check from Uncle Sam". Wouldn't that logic have to extend to obesity and the argument that one doesn't need to eat so much food?

I'm being a bit tongue in cheek but a bit serious too.

Rick